1 / 5 2025:CGHC:61559 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1914 of 2025 Tukeshwar Chakradhari S/o Kuleshwar Prajapati Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Raveli, P.S. Panduka, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh. --- Applicant. versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Gariyaband, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Richa Pandey, Advocate. For State : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. GA. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment On Board 17.12.2025 1. Challenge in this criminal appeal is to impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 03.09.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, (NDPS Act), Raipur, (CG) in Special Case No.56/2020, whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentence as under: 2 / 5 Conviction Sentence Under Section 20(b) (ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. Rigorous imprisonment for 03 years & fine of Rs.30,000/-, in default of payment of fine 03 months additional RI. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 05.05.2020, the Police received secret information that one Yogesh Thakur pertains to Village - Talesara, P.S. Chhura, has hidden illicit contraband Ganja at Village Kdeiaama for sale; further case of the prosecution is that two suspicious persons were found near the house of Dasu Kumar, who were arrested and their memorandum were recorded, in which, they stated that they hidden the contraband near the house of Dasu Kumar; further it was revealed that they purchased the above Ganja from the Constable Leeladhar Devvanshi and Hemant Dhruv. During investigation, the police has caught two accused persons and seized 02 Kg contraband Ganja from Yogesh Thakur and 1.6 Kg ganja from the present applicant/Tukeshwer Chakradhari. On the basis of seizure, accused were arrested under the NDPS Act. After completion of other necessary formalities, the police returned to the Police Station and deposited the seized narcotics drug in the Malkhana and lodged FIR against the appellant. 3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet/challan was filed against the appellant and based upon which trial Court framed the charges against him. 3 / 5 4. In order to prove guilt of appellant, prosecution examined total 17 witnesses and their statements were recorded. However, no defence witnesses was examined. Statement of appellant (accused) was recorded under Section 313 CrPC in which he pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. After completion of trial, trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph -1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that she is not pressing this appeal on merits and confining her arguments to the quantum of sentence only. She contended that quantity of contraband ganja seized from the appellant is an intermediate quantity. Maximum jail sentence awarded to the appellant is of 03 years, he has already served more than 04 months of jail sentence. Appellant is not having any previous criminal incident, hence, it is prayed that sentence awarded to appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the prayer of learned counsel for appellant, would submit that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant and therefore, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment. 4 / 5 9. Though learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged conviction of appellant and restricted her prayer only with regard to reduction of sentence as undergone, but still this Court deems it appropriate to examine the impugned judgment of the Court below. This Court has meticulously perused impugned judgment and evidence on record. 10. Perusal of impugned judgment reveals that the trial Court after elaborately considering evidence of each individual material witness, has observed that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against appellant. Learned trial Court has also discussed about the compliance of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act and held that all the mandatory provisions under the NDPS Act had been complied with and that being the position, this Court is the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any mistake in arriving at a conclusion that appellant is guilty for the aforementioned offence. 11. As regards quantum of sentence, considering the total quantity of contraband ganja seized from the appellant, ie, 1.6 kg, maximum jail sentence awarded to the appellant is of 03 years, he has already served about 04 months of jail sentence, he is not having any previous criminal incident in similar nature, this Court is of the opinion that sentence imposed by trial Court upon the appellant (RI for 03 years) appears to be on higher side, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the sentence 5 / 5 awarded to appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act is hereby affirmed. Sentence imposed upon the appellant under aforementioned Section is hereby modified and reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, fine amount imposed upon the appellant shall remain intact. 13. Record of trial Court alongwith copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-